I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

Anyway, the 6D's cross sensor has a higher sensitivity than all other models mentioned.

i personally do believe that canon 6d will have cleaner iso comparing to canon 5d mark iii... here are some example of high iso images for someones in previous post wondering as if 5d mark iii noise is usable at 12,800 or higher. to me, it is usable up to 25,600. but to be safe, use it somewhere 10,000

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

Anyway, the 6D's cross sensor has a higher sensitivity than all other models mentioned.

I think it's fairly clear Canon had a specific type of photography/photographer in mind when they designed this system. Namely people who don't shoot many fast moving subjects, but need to focus in all kinds of light. Portrait and landscape are of course two that come to mind. If you look at it from the perspective of that type of photographer, the -3EV center cross-type should be outstanding and clearly an upgrade from the 60D/650D, since the other points almost don't need to be there (even on the 5D3 the most precise points are in the center). The sports/action/wildlife photographer is right to say this system is unlikely to be good for them - and get a 7D or 5D3. I realize this isn't what a lot of people were hoping it would be, but for some this may be just what they needed (without the expense of the 5D3).

The d600 looks like it's more of a sports/general use camera, with a higher bust rate, and more AF points (even if all the cross type are stuck in the center.) The down side is, it won't handle low-light as well. Since I shot a lot of strobist stuff at dusk/night, the 6D looks like it could be the better option. Although for others the d600, 7D, or 5D3 may be the best option for their type of photography.

We do have cameras that do (almost) everything very well, the 5d3 and the d800, but you have to pay a lot more for that sadly - and that's just the reality of the market.

Should Canon have put the 9 or 17 point all cross-type system from the 60D/7D into the 6D, it's hard to say. On one hand they would have made tracking better, but on the other, it wouldn't be as good in low light. Only time and the market will tell if this was a good move or not.

Prices generally do not go up, so waiting should not hurt financially.

Only true for camera bodies (ok, this thread is about the 6d) and only if inflation's not kicking in or your part of the world goes broke and your currency drops - so watch the news :-p

As for the 6d, I can think of exactly 1000 1€-reasons why I should at least wait for the real reviews - the sensor seems to be mostly the same as in the 5d3, maybe with a little better noise - but often that doesn't help that much because of dynamic range deterioration.

The big question is how *precise* the center point af will be, esp. with faster lenses (like f2.8+) and a smaller dof where missing the focus really shows - af'ing at near darkness or low light is less amazing if it's a close miss in 25% of the cases. The af precision is not only a hardware issue, but the firmware has a part too esp. if the less-precise non-center points are used for helpers for the center one.

I think one of the biggest things the 6D has going for itself after yesterday for people who already own a canon and some who don't is the ease of use.

Costco now has a display D600 and I stood there for 20 minutes playing with it being completely unable to figure out how to change the Drive mode or shutter speed. I've never had that problem picking up a canon even if its a body I haven't touched before. I know many love the 5D lineup but having to use 2 hands to change some basic functions sucks. That was my other D600 complaint.

So I await eagerly to see a real world review of the 6D or 7D2 in the spring. One has my name one it.

Various websites are saying the 6D sensor will actually have an advantage in low noise at high ISO vs. the sensor on 5D3. I have an itchy trigger finger with all the $2500 give-aways on the 5D3. If the 6D were really going to stay at or around $2100.00, it would seem like a slam dunk for buying 5D3, UNLESS the new sensor really is better in low light... I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Plus, heck, the replacement for the 7D (7D2?) could have a wildly better sensor?

What do CR folks think of this?

I should say you can see my equipment below my name. I shoot portraits and candids of my 7-year old and 6-y-o and my infant. They do/will play some peewee soccer, but nothing challenging for another 6-8 years max! I've never met a bird who would pay fair value for an excelent portrait at 1000 yards, so I don't need too incredible an AF capability.

If your choosing between the 6D and 5D3 based mostly on sensor tech, Be prepared for disappointment.

If you choose based on the metering, AF, ergos, etc... the 5D3 is vastly superior.

Various websites are saying the 6D sensor will actually have an advantage in low noise at high ISO vs. the sensor on 5D3. I have an itchy trigger finger with all the $2500 give-aways on the 5D3. If the 6D were really going to stay at or around $2100.00, it would seem like a slam dunk for buying 5D3, UNLESS the new sensor really is better in low light... I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Plus, heck, the replacement for the 7D (7D2?) could have a wildly better sensor?

What do CR folks think of this?

I should say you can see my equipment below my name. I shoot portraits and candids of my 7-year old and 6-y-o and my infant. They do/will play some peewee soccer, but nothing challenging for another 6-8 years max! I've never met a bird who would pay fair value for an excelent portrait at 1000 yards, so I don't need too incredible an AF capability.

If your choosing between the 6D and 5D3 based mostly on sensor tech, Be prepared for disappointment.

If you choose based on the metering, AF, ergos, etc... the 5D3 is vastly superior.

i think the same way though... even though i believe that canon 6d has advantage on clean noise at high iso, i would still pick 5d mark iii as if i bought it again...

I think it's fairly clear Canon had a specific type of photography/photographer in mind when they designed this system. Namely people who don't shoot many fast moving subjects, but need to focus in all kinds of light. Portrait and landscape are of course two that come to mind. If you look at it from the perspective of that type of photographer, the -3EV center cross-type should be outstanding and clearly an upgrade from the 60D/650D, since the other points almost don't need to be there (even on the 5D3 the most precise points are in the center). The sports/action/wildlife photographer is right to say this system is unlikely to be good for them - and get a 7D or 5D3. I realize this isn't what a lot of people were hoping it would be, but for some this may be just what they needed (without the expense of the 5D3)...

Some good points here. 6D looks to be very 40D like in that regard -- aimed at center-AF dominant work: "grab focus; then frame". Whats interesting to me is that, while the -3EV center point on the 6D is attractive, to be sure, all the other points are +.5EV sensitive, which means the moment you pick a different focus point, the 5D3 clearly wins AF sensitivity by 2.5 stops .

If you choose based on the metering, AF, ergos, etc... the 5D3 is vastly superior.

... and it should be for €1000 more. As for ergonomics, the size/layout is really a personal choice (but of course the 5d3 has more ergo features), concerning the af no one tested it yet and it's really about what you shoot (very low-light or not) and metering is exactly the same on 5d3 & 6d.

Logged

takoman46

The 6D high ISO images have a bit less noise than the 5D3 (not really significant IMO), but the 5D3 images retain way more detail, sharpness and DR at high ISO. The strengths of the 5D3 are much more valuable than less native noise and a softer image from the 6D. After all, that's what noise reduction software is for.

Well, the OP here (me) has ordered a 6D. It arrives tomorrow. I had no real need for 61 AF points and multiple movement-type AF settings. My kids couldn't possibly move that fast or erratically, and I don't care enough about birds and stuff to spend $1,000 bucks on them. (what have they ever done for me?)I might still have bought the 5D3 anyway but for the fact it is also perhaps worse at the one thing I know I DO care about, which would be AF and noise in dim light on the center AF point. I shoot indoors in a lattitude where the winter is fairly long. See all the posts about "5D3 + AF assist = even slower AF", etc....